Home-based protest against Con-Ass.

I'm in a home-based protest against the attempt of Philippine congress to summarily introduce charter change through constitutional assembly (ConAss).
The sinister motives seem plausible in this political maneuver by intentionally sidelining the participation of the House of Senate in this process, a felonious act against our constitution (the fundamental laws of our land.)
Is ConASS intended to open land rights ownership to foreigners? Or is it design to strategically pave the way for the reigning president to perpetuate her rule and power beyond 2010?
There is no express or straight resonance yet that will affirmatively answer these queries. Malacanang pretends to be unmoved, silent and unaffected. But most political analyses point to that.
But whilst I am expressing my sentiment on this national concern, I am also silently sending some crooked queries at the back of my mind.
What happen to those who are espousing Federalism? What happen to the group of secessionists who wanted to change this unitary and presidential system of governance to a new system that accommodates a juridical entity that is almost near to independence? Are they not backing up the constitutional amendment planned by congress? Or, are they going to tell media people again that "that this political madness is an internal affair to the government of the Republic of the Philippines and that secessionists are not privy to it."
Isn't their advocacies necessitate charter change?

On resolution amending Sec 2-3 of Art XII of the Phil. Constitution

Gud day pepz!

Please take note of the amendment to the Constitution passed in Congress today changing the Secs. 2 and 3 of Art. X11 of the constitution granting ownership and control to foreign corporations on public and private domains. The Resolution 737 is entitled "Resolution proposing amendments to SEctions 2 and 3 ARticle XII of the Constitution to allow the acquisition by foreign corporations and associations, and the transfer or conveyance thereto of alienable public lands and private lands"

This was proposed by Cong. Nograles. In part, the resolution states:

-----
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the first paragraph of Section 2 and Section 3 of Article XII of the Constitution be amended to read as follows:

Sec. 2 All lands of hte public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the STate. with the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. the exploration, development and the utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. the State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture or prodcution-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or coproations or associations (at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens [deleted] DOMESTIC OR FOREIGN [added]....

Sec. 3 lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural , forst or timber, mineral lands and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by law according to the use to which they may be devoted. Alienable lands, CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND private corporations and associations, DOMESTIC OR FOREIGN may hold such alienable lands of the public domain by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area, OR ACQUIRE SUCH ALIENABLE LANDS, NOT TO EXCEED TWENTY FIVE HECTARES IN AREA, BY PURCHASE OR GRANT. [Citizens of the Philippines may lease mpt ,pre tjam five hundred hectares or acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof by purchase, homestead or grant - deleted].

From Cocoy of LRC-KSK
For those who are interested of the whole copy may email me cristito2001@yahoo.com or may email Cocoy. Please make us eof LRC-KSK web to access his email add.